Strasbourg / Warsaw, 19 September 2023 CDL(2023)052*

Or. Engl.
(PG/DV/sm)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW

(VENICE COMMISSION)

OSCE OFFICE FOR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

(OSCE/ODIHR)

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

DRAFT JOINT OPINION

ON AMENDMENTS TO THE ELECTORAL CODE AND OTHER RELATED LAWS

CONCERNING INELIGIBILITY OF PERSONS CONNECTED TO POLITICAL
PARTIES DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

on the basis of comments by

Mr Srdjan DARMANOVIĊ (Member, Montenegro)

Mr Michael FRENDO (Member, Malta)
Ms Janine OTÁLORA MALASSIS (Substitute Member,
Mexico)
Mr Kaarlo TUORI (Honorary President of the Venice Commission)
Ms Marla MORRY (ODIHR, Expert)
Ms Lolita ČIGĀNE (ODIHR, Expert)
Ms Barbara JOUAN STONESTREET (ODIHR, Expert)

*This document has been classified restricted on the date of issue. Unless the Venice Commission decides otherwise, it will be
declassified a year after its issue according to the rules set up in Resolution CM/Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe
documents.
This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy.
www.venice.coe.int
CDL(2023)052 -2-

Table of contents
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3
II. Background and scope of the Joint Opinion .................................................................. 3
III. Analysis and recommendations ..................................................................................... 6
A. Procedural aspects .................................................................................................... 6
1. Principles............................................................................................................. 6
2. Application to the present case............................................................................ 6
B. Substantive aspects: the restriction of the right to be elected .................................... 7
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 7
2. Relevant international and regional treaties, standards and OSCE commitments 7
3. Prescribed by law .............................................................................................. 12
4. Legitimate aim ................................................................................................... 12
5. Proportionality ................................................................................................... 13
6. Procedural safeguards and effective remedy ..................................................... 15
7. Specific measures ............................................................................................. 16
IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 16
 -3- CDL(2023)052

I. Introduction

1. By letter of 24 July 2023, Mr Igor Grosu, the Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of
Moldova, submitted a request for an opinion of the Venice Commission on the draft Law on the
amendment of certain normative acts (the implementation of certain considerations of the
Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 10/2023 on the check of the constitutionality of the
Political Party ‘Șor’). The draft Law was then adopted by the Parliament on 31 July 2023 (CDL-
REF(2023)032, hereinafter: the Law).

2. More precisely, the request asks the following questions:

- In the context of implementing the Decision of the Constitutional Court, which, first and
foremost has a preventive purpose, thus aims at limiting the participation in the political
activity of such parties, would a three-year restriction to candidate (to persons holding
leadership positions or elected office of a party which had been declared
unconstitutional) be efficient and proportional?
- Is there any previous experience in European countries in this regard, or any
references that would support such a restriction?

3. As this Opinion relates to the electoral field, it was prepared jointly by the Venice Commission
and ODIHR. This Opinion, that was requested on the basis of the draft Law, covers the provisions
contained in the promulgated Law.

4. Mr Srdjan Darmanović, Mr Michael Frendo, Ms Janine Otálora Malassis and Mr Kaarlo Tuori
acted as rapporteurs for this opinion. Ms Marla Morry and two members of ODIHR Core Group
of Experts on Political Parties, Ms Lolita Čigāne and Ms Barbara Jouan Stonestreet, were
appointed as experts for ODIHR.

5. On 4-5 September 2023, a joint delegation composed of Mr Darmanović, Mr Frendo and Mr

Tuori for the Venice Commission, assisted by Mr Pierre Garrone and Mr Domenico Vallario from
the Secretariat of the Commission, and Mr Goran Petrov from the Secretariat of ODIHR, had
online meetings with the Minister of Justice and other representatives of the ministry; the Legal
Committee on Appointments and Immunities of the Parliament; independent members of
Parliament; the Central Electoral Commission; the Office of the People’s Advocate;
representatives of the civil society and of the European Union. The Electoral Bloc of Socialists
and Communists was not available for meetings. This joint opinion takes into account the
information obtained during the above-mentioned meetings. The Commission and ODIHR are
grateful to the Moldovan authorities for the excellent organisation of these meetings.

6. This opinion was prepared in reliance on the English translation of the Law. The translation
may not accurately reflect the original version on all points.

7. This Joint Opinion was drafted on the basis of comments by the Venice Commission’s
rapporteurs and ODIHR experts and the results of the meetings on 4-5 September 2023. It was
approved by the Council for Democratic Elections at its *** meeting, and, following an exchange
of views with ***, it was adopted by the Venice Commission at its *** Plenary Session (Venice,
*** 2023).

II. Background and scope of the Joint Opinion

8. The request by the Speaker of the Parliament of Moldova follows a decision of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova on 19 June 2023 to declare the political party
Şor unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court found this party to be unconstitutional as a result
of the fact that “the party and its leaders, consciously, persistently, methodically and non-
CDL(2023)052 -4-

transparently had been using financial means of illegal origin in their activity to distort
democratic processes and undermine the existing constitutional order”;1 moreover, the
political party was involved in vote buying. As a result, the Constitutional Court concluded that
the actions of the political party Şor were detrimental to the sovereignty and independence of
the Republic of Moldova, emphasising that the authorities had previously applied the most
severe measures apart from the declaration of unconstitutionality, such as the cancellation of
the candidates’ registration, and this had not influenced in any way the conduct of the political
party Şor in the subsequent electoral campaigns. Therefore, the Constitutional Court
considered that the only appropriate measure was to declare the unconstitutionality of the
party and stressed that the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the political party was
mainly aimed at preventing “the emergence of future dangers to the constitutional democratic
order”. The Constitutional Court stated that representatives and members of the "Şor" Political
Party who, at the date of this decision, are holding seats in the Parliament of the Republic
shall continue to exercise their mandates as independent deputies, without the right to join
other parliamentary factions." Within the framework of the preparation of this judgement, the
Constitutional Court had requested an amicus curiae brief of the Venice Commission. The
Commission had concluded, among other things, that the declaration of unconstitutionality of
a political party must be a measure of exceptional nature and a last resort, and in addition to
meeting the requirements of legality and proportionality, the dissolution of a party must be
necessary in a democratic society.2

9. With the aim of putting in place a “preventive system to protect democracy”, as stated in the
accompanying Information Note, the Parliament of Moldova prepared the draft Law under
consideration that was then voted into the Law.

10. The main provisions of the draft amending the Electoral Code originally provided for the
ineligibility, for three years, of:
• Members of the executive body of the party;
• Members of the party who held an elected office at the date of the ruling of the
Constitutional Court;
• Members of the party who were on the lists of alternate candidates.

11. The Electoral Code, which would be amended by the draft law, covers, in addition to
parliamentary elections, also presidential and local elections. Ineligibility to be elected would
extend to all these elections.

12. The draft Law was introduced in the parliament by members of the ruling PAS party on 10
July and the expedited first reading took place in the parliament on 14 July.3 Following a short
period of public consultations, the draft law was voted on 31 July 2023 in a second reading with
some amendments: it now foresees a five-year ban from all elective offices for members of the
executive body of a party declared unconstitutional and members of such party who hold an
elected office at the time of the decision of the Constitutional Court. Candidates nominated by
such a political party in past elections of all types were removed from the draft Law prior to its
adoption and are therefore not subject to the ban.4 Procedural amendments related to the
liquidation of a party following a judgment of the Constitutional Court remain in the revised draft.
The Law is now divided into three parts, relating to amendments to the Electoral Code;
amendments to the Law on Political Parties; and amendments to the Criminal Code. The

1 § 151 of the judgement, to be found (in Romanian) at Curtea Constituţională a Republicii Moldova (constcourt.md).
2 Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2022)051, Republic of Moldova - Amicus curiae brief on declaring a political party
unconstitutional.
3 Currently, the parliament comprises just two parliamentary factions, the ruling PAS party, and a faction in the

opposition that includes the Communist party and the Socialist party. The MPs of the former Şor party faction are
now serving as independent MPs.
4 According to the information provided by the Central Electoral Commission, this reduced the number of individuals

potentially affected from more than 6,000 to 641, as pertains to the Sor Party.
 -5- CDL(2023)052

representatives of the parliament argued that the Law had to be swiftly adopted, despite the
severity of the impact on citizens’ electoral rights, in light of the above-noted Constitutional Court
decision and due to the end of parliamentary session before the recess and the need to legislate
before the start of the candidate registration process for the upcoming local elections on 5
November.

13. The amendments to the Law on Political Parties provide in particular that “the attributes
of political parties declared unconstitutional by the decision of the Constitutional Court may
not be used by other political parties, electoral blocs, other electoral contenders, participants
in a referendum or initiative groups. The finding of the use of such attributes is a ground for
the refusal to register the political party by the Public Service Agency and the refusal to register
an electoral subject by the competent electoral body for participation in any elections” (Article
4(6) of the Law). The Law also introduces new procedures to carry out the liquidation of
political parties declared unconstitutional. Further, an amendment to the Electoral Code
mandates the de-registration of an electoral subject if found liable for vote-buying by a
competent electoral body, regardless of the severity of the offence (Article 102(5)(f)).

14. Amendments to the Criminal Code include increased sanctions for political parties and
electoral candidates to accept funds from organised criminal activities or prohibited sources. In
addition, new crimes are introduced “passive political corruption”, that is acceptance by public
persons in the exercise of the mandate obtained following the elections, of goods, services,
privileges or advantages in any form, undue to them, in order to resign from (leave) a political
party and/or join another political party; and 3) “active political corruption”, that is giving to public
persons in the exercise of the mandate obtained following the elections, goods, services,
privileges or advantages in any form, undue to them, in order to resign from (leave) a political
party and/or join another political party.

15. The Law was then promulgated by the President of the Republic and came into effect on 14
August.

16. The questions asked by the Speaker of Parliament focus on the amendments to the Electoral
Code. The Joint Opinion will therefore not provide a separate examination of the two other
chapters of the Law (the amendments to the Law on Political Parties and to the Criminal Code)
except as they pertain directly to the right to stand for election.

17. According to information provided by their lawyers, “the Şor Party’s current (independent)
Members of Parliament applied to the Moldovan Constitutional Court, requesting a review of
the constitutionality of the Banning Legislation and interim measures suspending the effect of
the Banning Legislation. The request for interim measures was rejected by the Constitutional
Court on 8 August 2023. That decision is final and is not subject to appeal. There is no
indication as to when the substantive application will be determined.” On 17 August 2023, they
applied to the European Court of Human Rights for interim measures, which in turn were
refused.

18. The Venice Commission and ODIHR’s task is not to analyse the constitutionality of the Law,
let alone the content of the Constitutional Court’s decision, nor up to what extent the Law is
necessary to ensure the implementation of that judgement. The scope of the Joint Opinion is to
analyse the conformity of the restrictions provided by the Law with international standards, and
OSCE human dimension commitments, in particular with the right to stand for election, which is
an aspect of universal suffrage.
CDL(2023)052 -6-

III. Analysis and recommendations

A. Procedural aspects

1. Principles

19. The Venice Commission and ODIHR have consistently expressed the view that any
successful changes to electoral legislation should be built on at least the following three
essential elements:
1) clear and comprehensive legislation that meets international obligations and
standards and addresses prior recommendations;
2) the adoption of legislation by broad consensus after extensive public consultations
with all relevant stakeholders; and
3) the political commitment to fully implement such legislation in good faith, with adequate
procedural and judicial safeguards and means by which to timely evaluate any alleged
failure to do so.

20. Moreover, the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters (the Code)5
recommends that the fundamental elements of electoral law, in particular the electoral system
proper, membership of electoral commissions and the drawing of constituency boundaries,
should not be open to amendment less than one year before an election, or should be written in
the constitution or at a level higher than ordinary law. In reference to this recommendation, the
Code’s Explanatory Note cautions that in adopting amendments, “care must be taken to avoid
not only manipulation for the advantage of the party in power, but even the mere semblance of
manipulation [...] Even when no manipulation is intended, changes will seem to be dictated by
immediate political interests.”6

2. Application to the present case

21. The Law was adopted with the votes of the majority in Parliament six weeks after the
judgement of the Constitutional Court and slightly more than four months before the next local
elections called for 5 November 2023, with the stated aim to implement the Constitutional Court’s
judgment. This opinion and its recommendations are without the prejudice to the Constitutional
Court judgment.

22. When addressing stability of electoral law, the Code does not explicitly refer to the right to
vote and to be elected. The purpose of the present Opinion is not to take a general stance on
whether this principle should apply to other aspects of electoral law than those expressly
mentioned in the Code.

23. The Venice Commission and ODIHR would, however, like to underline the particularity of the
present situation. The authorities amended the legislation with the stated aim to implement the
judgement of the Constitutional Court and the principle of stability of electoral law cannot be
invoked to prevent the timely implementation of a judgement if it requires legislative changes to
comply with constitutional norms and principles. Moreover, while adoption of legislation by broad
consensus after extensive public consultations with all relevant stakeholders is always preferable,
the absence of consensus should not be an obstacle to the execution of the judgement. However,
it is important to note that the Constitutional Court judgement did not explicitly mandate any
legislative amendments for the judgement to be fully implemented.

5 Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2002)023rev2-cor, Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, II.2.b. See also
CDL-AD(2005)043, Interpretative Declaration on the Stability of the Electoral Law, and (mutatis mutandis) ECtHR,
8 July 2008, Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, no. 9103/04, § 88.
6 Ibid., §§ 64-65.
 -7- CDL(2023)052

B. Substantive aspects: the restriction of the right to be elected

1. Introduction

24. The Law lays down the ineligibility to hold elective office for “persons who hold the quality of
member of the executive body of the political party declared unconstitutional, as well as the
individuals that hold elective functions on behalf of the unconstitutional political party, for a period
of 5 years from the day of the pronouncement of the decision of the Constitutional Court.”
Ineligibility extends to all elected offices and applies:

- Ratione personae: a) to members of the executive body of a party declared

unconstitutional and b) to members of such party who hold an elected office – on the day
of the pronouncement of the Constitutional Court’s decision determining the
unconstitutionality of a political party.

- Ratione temporis: five years from the day of the pronouncement of the Constitutional
Court’s decision determining the unconstitutionality of a political party.

25. The ban of political parties as collective entities, although not so frequent in democracies, is
a relatively well-known topic and almost all democratic systems recognise and regulate some
form of ban of political parties that are perceived as a threat to the democratic system. The Venice
Commission and ODIHR have addressed this issue, inter alia, in the Joint Guidelines on Political
Party Regulation.7 The issue was also specifically addressed by the Venice Commission in the
Guidelines on prohibition and dissolution of political parties and analogous measures.8 The
Venice Commission has also been repeatedly called in the past to assess legislation providing
ineligibility to be elected in the case of electoral and criminal offenders. It has also provided a
comparative report on the subject.9 The Venice Commission expressed the view that the
withdrawal of the right to serve as a representative due to criminal conviction for serious offences
should be considered as a means of preserving democracy and the voters’ trust in it.10 The case
under consideration is, however, different. The individuals affected by the Law have not been
convicted of any criminal offence. The Venice Commission and ODIHR are therefore called to
assess a Law which introduces a restriction, on the ground of membership in a party declared
unconstitutional, to the right to be elected of certain individuals who – at the time of prohibition –
were exercising an executive function in that party or holding an elective office.

2. Relevant international and regional treaties, standards and OSCE

commitments 11

26. Political rights of participation are enshrined in Article 3 of Protocol No. 112 to the European
Convention on Human Rights; Article 25.b13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
7 CDL-AD(2020)032, §§ 106ff.
8 CDL-INF(2000)001.
9 Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2015)036cor, Report on exclusion of offenders from Parliament.
10 Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2017)025, Amicus curiae brief for the European Court of Human Rights in the

case of Berlusconi v. Italy on the minimum procedural guarantees which a state must provide in the framework of
a procedure of disqualification from holding an elective office, § 11.
11 On the international standards applicable to the right to vote and be elected, see, for example, Venice

Commission, Report on Term Limits; Part II, Members of Parliament, and Part III, Representatives elected at Sub
National and local level and executive officials elected at sub national and local level CDL-AD(2019)007, §§ 13ff.
12 Right to free elections.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under
conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
13 Article 21.

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and
without unreasonable restrictions:
[…].
CDL(2023)052 -8-

Rights (complemented by Article 2(1) on the prohibition of discrimination),14 Article 2115 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document.16 In the
specific case of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human
Rights has held that the right to free elections relates to the right to vote, and the passive aspect,
namely the right to stand as a candidate for election.17 Article 25 ICCPR is of particular relevance
for eligibility to be elected in presidential and local elections, which are not covered by Article 3
of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR. In its General Comment on Article 25 of the ICCPR, the Human
Rights Committee points to the connection between passive and active electoral rights: the
effective implementation of the right and the opportunity to stand for elective office ensures that
persons entitled to vote must have a free choice of candidates. The General Comment also
emphasises that any restrictions on the right to stand for election must be justifiable on objective
and reasonable criteria and that persons who are otherwise eligible to stand for election should
not be excluded by unreasonable or discriminatory requirements such as education, residence
or descent, or by reason of political affiliation.18 The General Comment further underlines that
political opinion may not be used as grounds to deprive any person of the right to stand for
election.19

27. Furthermore, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that
“participation is a hallmark of democracy”20, additionally, it has considered that “wide-reaching
restrictions or deprivations of electoral rights may not be compatible with guarantees of equality
and non-discrimination under international law”.21

28. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR applies to electoral rights concerning national
parliaments and other “legislatures”. However, according to the ECtHR, “legislature” does not
necessarily mean the national parliament alone but municipal councils, district councils and
regional assemblies may be covered by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 if they exercise “inherent
primary rulemaking powers and form part of the legislature”. Yet, “the power to make regulations
and by-laws, which is conferred on the local authorities in many countries, is to be distinguished

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall
be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.
14 Ukraine ratified the Covenant in 1973, available in: https://indicators.ohchr.org/.
15 1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen

representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic
and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by
equivalent free voting procedures.
16 CSCE/OSCE, Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE,

29 June 1990, paras. 6-7 and 24, whereby OSCE participating States committed “[t]o ensure that the will of the
people serves as the basis of the authority of government, the participating States will (…) respect the right of
citizens to seek political or public office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organizations,
without discrimination” (para. 7.5) and that any restriction on rights and freedoms must “be strictly proportionate to
the aim of th[e] law” (para. 24).
17 ECtHR, Tănase v. Moldova [GC], 27 April 2010, no. 7/08, § 155.
18 United Nations. Human Rights Committee. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7. 27 August 1996. General Comment 25, §

17. Cf. Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2018)010, Report on Term Limits - Part I – Presidents, § 66.
19 United Nations. Human Rights Committee. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7. 27 August 1996. General Comment 25, §

17.
20 United Nations. Human Rights Council. A/HRC/30/26. 23 July 2015. Promotion, protection and implementation

of the right to participate in public affairs in the context of the existing human rights law: best practices, experiences,
challenges and ways to overcome them. Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, § 4.
21 United Nations. Human Rights Council. A/HRC/30/26. 23 July 2015. Promotion, protection and implementation

of the right to participate in public affairs in the context of the existing human rights law: best practices, experiences,
challenges and ways to overcome them. Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, § 8.
 -9- CDL(2023)052

from legislative power”, including at the regional level.22 Article 25 ICCPR and Article 3 of Protocol
No. 1 to the ECHR enshrine the principle of equal treatment of all citizens in the exercise of their
electoral rights.23 In the practice of the ECtHR, restrictions of local electoral rights have been
examined under the anti-discrimination clause of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, which includes a
general prohibition of discrimination, not limited merely to Convention rights.24 This article forbids
discrimination in the enjoyment of any right set forth by law on any ground, including political or
other opinion. The Republic of Moldova has not ratified Protocol No. 12.

29. The amendments adopted by the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova introduce a
restriction to the right to free elections enshrined in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR
and Article 25 ICCPR, more precisely to the passive aspect of universal suffrage (the right to
be elected).25

30. The right to stand for elections is not absolute. In its advisory opinion on the assessment,
under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of the proportionality of a general prohibition
on standing for election after removal from office in impeachment proceedings,26 the European
Court of Human Rights reminded essential elements of its case-law on the limitation of the rights
guaranteed by this provision:

“b) The concept of “implied limitations”

81. In Selahattin Demirtaş ([ (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, 22 December 2020],

§§ 387-88), the Court underscored the principle of implied limitations: (…)
(…)
“388. The concept of ‘implied limitations’ means that the traditional tests of ‘necessity’ or
‘pressing social need’ which the Court uses in the context of its analyses under Articles 8
to 11 of the Convention are not applied in cases concerning Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
Rather, the Court first sets out to ascertain whether there has been arbitrary treatment or
a lack of proportionality. Next, it examines whether the limitation has interfered with the
free expression of the opinion of the people (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, [2 March
1987, no. 9267/81], § 52, and Ždanoka, [[GC], 16 March 2006, no. 58278/00], § 115).”

c) Legitimate aim

82. Unlike Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

does not itself set out a list of aims which can be considered legitimate for the
purposes of that Article (see Tănase, [[GC], 27 April 2010, no. 7/08], § 164).
(…)
The Court also specified that where an immediate threat to democracy or
independence had passed, measures that were concerned with identifying a credible
threat to the State interest in particular circumstances based on specific information
should be preferred to operating on a blanket assumption that a certain category of
persons posed a threat to national security and independence.

22 See Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, Right to free elections,
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_3_Protocol_1_ENG.pdf.
23 ECtHR, Partija “Jaunie Demokrāti” and Partija “Mūsu Zeme” v. Latvia (dec.), 29 November 2007, nos. 10547/07 and

34049/07.
24 ECtHR, Selygenenko and others v. Ukraine, 21 October 2021, nos. 24919/16 and 28658/16.
25 See Venice Commission, Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, CDL-AD(2002)023rev2-cor, I.1.
26 Advisory opinion on the assessment, under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of the proportionality

of a general prohibition on standing for election after removal from office in impeachment proceedings, Request
no. P16-2020-002 by the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court, 8 April 2022.
CDL(2023)052 - 10 -

d) Impact of the political and historical context

86. In Tănase (cited above), the Court acknowledged that any electoral
legislation must be assessed in the light of the historical and political context of the
country concerned, but that restrictions on electoral rights should be individualised
as time passes. It stated:
(…)
“159. […] in Ādamsons [v. Latvia (no. 3669/03, §§ 123-28, 24 June 2008]), the Court
emphasised that with the passage of time, general restrictions on electoral rights become
more difficult to justify. Instead, measures had to be ‘individualised’ in order to address a real
risk posed by an identified individual.”

The Court also specified that where an immediate threat to democracy or

independence had passed, measures that were concerned with identifying a credible
threat to the State interest in particular circumstances based on specific information
should be preferred to operating on a blanket assumption that a certain category of
persons posed a threat to national security and independence.

87. Regarding the time-limit for restrictions on electoral rights, the Court held
in Ždanoka (cited above):
“135. It is to be noted that the Constitutional Court observed in its decision of 30 August
2000 that the Latvian parliament should establish a time-limit on the restriction. In the light
of this warning, even if today Latvia cannot be considered to have overstepped its wide
margin of appreciation under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, it is nevertheless the case that the
Latvian parliament must keep the statutory restriction under constant review, with a view
to bringing it to an early end. Such a conclusion seems all the more justified in view of the
greater stability which Latvia now enjoys, inter alia, by reason of its full European
integration … Hence, the failure by the Latvian legislature to take active steps in this
connection may result in a different finding by the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Sheffield
and Horsham v. the United Kingdom, 30 July 1998, § 60, Reports 1998-V; see also the
follow-up judgment to that case, Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC],
no. 28957/95, §§ 71-93, ECHR 2002-VI).”

e) Procedural safeguards
88. For the purpose of supervising the compatibility of an interference with the
requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court must scrutinise the relevant domestic
procedures and decisions in detail, in order to determine whether sufficient safeguards
against arbitrariness were afforded to the applicant and whether the relevant decisions
were sufficiently reasoned (see Abil v. Azerbaijan, no. 16511/06, § 34, 21 February 2012).”

31. In its examination of compliance with Art. 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court has thus applied
two main criteria: whether there has been arbitrariness or a lack of proportionality, and whether
the restriction has interfered with the free expression of the opinion of the people. The Court has
also underlined “the need to assess any electoral legislation in the light of the political evolution
of the country concerned, which means that unacceptable features in one system may be
justified in another.27

32. In the case Ždanoka v. Latvia, the Court also emphasised that “active participation” is a way
of conduct giving rise to the restriction of the right to stand for elections28. In a later case,

27 Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2019)007, Report on Term Limits; Part II, Members of Parliament, and Part III,
Representatives elected at Sub National and local level and executive officials elected at sub national and local
level, referring to ECtHR, -Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, no. 9267/81, § 52 and Ždanoka v. Latvia
[GC], 16 March 2006, no. 58278/00, §§ 103-104 and 115.
28 ECtHR, Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], 16 March 2006, no. 58278/00, § 126.
 - 11 - CDL(2023)052

Ādamsons v. Latvia,29 it insisted on an individualised approach of the measure taking into account
their actual conduct. In Etxeberria and Others v. Spain, it did not find a violation of Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1 in a case where the applicants’ candidatures had been annulled on the grounds
that they were pursuing, with a different political party, the activities of the three political parties
which had been declared illegal and dissolved on account of their support for violence and for the
activities of the ETA, a terrorist organisation. The Court found that the national authorities had
had considerable evidence enabling them to conclude that the electoral groupings in question
wished to continue the activities of the political parties concerned. It insisted on the fact that the
authorities had taken decisions to cancel applications on an individual basis.30

33. The case-law of the European Court on Human Rights makes a distinction between the
restrictions on the right to vote and the right to stand for election. “Stricter requirements may be
imposed on the eligibility to stand for election to parliament, as distinguished from voting
eligibility”.31 At the same time, the Court has stated that the right to be elected is “inherent in the
concept of a truly democratic state”.32

34. Concerning the deprivation of the right to vote and to be elected, the Code of Good
Practice in Electoral Matters states:

“i. provision may be made for depriving individuals of their right to vote and to be
elected, but only subject to the following cumulative conditions:
ii. it must be provided for by law;
iii. the proportionality principle must be observed; conditions for depriving
individuals of the right to stand for election may be less strict than for
disenfranchising them;
iv. The deprivation must be based on mental incapacity or a criminal conviction for
a serious offence;
v. Furthermore, the withdrawal of political rights or finding of mental incapacity may
only be imposed by express decision of a court of law.”33

35. The latter requirement must be read together with the case-law of the European Court of
Human Rights, which accepted a voting ban that applied only to persons convicted of certain
well-determined offences or to a custodial sentence exceeding a statutory threshold.34

36. The United Nations Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 25 has issued
a series of applicable guidelines. First, it recognises the right to be voted and to have access
to public service guaranteed by Article 25 of the ICCPR;35 additionally, any restrictions on the
right to stand for election must be justifiable on objective and reasonable criteria, particularly,
persons should not be excluded by unreasonable or discriminatory requirements such as by
reason of political affiliation;36 finally, political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive
any person of the right to stand for election.37

29 ECtHR, Ādamsons v. Latvia, 1 December 2008, no 3669/03, § 125.

30 ECtHR, Etxeberria Barrena Arza Nafarroako Autodeterminazio Bilgunea and Aiarako and others v. Spain, 30
June 2009, nos. 35579/03, 35613/03 and 35626/03, § 53.
31 ECtHR, Melnychenko v. Ukraine, 19 October 2004, no. 17707/02, § 57. See also Venice Commission, CDL-

AD(2002)023rev2-cor, Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, § 6.

32 ECtHR Podkolzina v. Latvia, 9 April 2002, no. 46726/99, para. 35.
33 Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2002)023rev2-cor, Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, I.1.1.d.
34 ECHR Scoppola v. Italy (no. 3) [GC], 22 May 2012, 126/05.
35 United Nations. Human Rights Committee. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7. 27 August 1996. General Comment 25,

§ 1.
36 United Nations. Human Rights Committee. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7. 27 August 1996. General Comment 25,

§ 15.
37 United Nations. Human Rights Committee. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7. 27 August 1996. General Comment 25, §

17.
CDL(2023)052 - 12 -

37. Based on the above, any restrictions to the right to stand for election should be prescribed by
law, pursue a legitimate aim, be justifiable based on objective, reasonable and non-discriminatory
criteria, be proportionate, with sufficient procedural safeguards afforded to the individual to
protect against arbitrariness. Any restrictions on electoral rights should be individualised and
assessed against a given country’s political and historical context.

3. Prescribed by law

38. In order to be compatible with the ECHR, any interference with Article 3 of Protocol no. 1 to
the ECHR shall in the first place be prescribed by law, meaning that it should be sufficiently clear
and foreseeable. The principle of foreseeability entails that an average person should be able to
be aware and foresee, at all times and to a reasonable degree, consequences stemming from
their actions to regulate their conduct accordingly.38 In principle, legislation should not have
retroactive effect and exceptions to this rule should be clearly outlined in legislation, strictly limited
to compelling public-interest reasons and only if in conformity with the principle of
proportionality.39 Regarding the introduction of new provisions disqualifying a candidate in
presidential elections, or on being a prime minister or minister, the UN Human Rights Committee
has for instance considered that when the law-making process introducing such restrictions was
highly linked in time and substance to other proceedings, in the specific case impeachment
proceedings against an individual, the said restrictions lacked the necessary foreseeability and
objectivity and thus amounted to an unreasonable restriction under Article 25 (b) and (c) of the
ICCPR.40 In addition, it is not clear whether the term “executive body” applies only to central
executive body of the party or also to the local bodies, which is not congruent with the principles
of legal certainty and foreseeability

4. Legitimate aim

39. Art. 3 of Protocol 1 does not include an explicit list of legitimate aims, such as Articles 8-
11 of the Convention, nor does the Court apply the tests of “necessity” or “pressing social
need”. Yet, as the Commission summarises in its 2019 report on term-limits, the aim a state
pursues must be compatible with the principle of the Rule of Law and the general objectives
of the Convention.41

40. According to the Explanatory Note of the draft Law, the latter is intended to implement “a
preventive mechanism resulting from the unconstitutional declaration of a political party”. The
European Court of Human Rights has recognised that the setting up of self-protection mechanism
to preserve the democratic order, for instance by excluding from the legislature any senior officials
who had committed gross violations of the Constitution or breached their oath provided for in the
Constitution constituted a legitimate aim.42 The Court also recognised the legitimacy of the aim
of ensuring loyalty to the State or the integrity of public office holders and public trust in public
institutions, in the case of the judiciary.43 The Constitutional Court justified its decision to declare
the political party Şor unconstitutional by the fact that its judgement was “first and foremost a
forward-looking act of democracy, defending itself against a real danger.” The stated aim to
defend the Constitution and the integrity of the democratic State, by preventing a political party

38 ECtHR, The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (No. 1), no. 6538/74, 26 April 1979, § 49. See also Venice
Commission, CDL-AD(2016)007, Rule of Law Checklist, § 58.
39 Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2016)007, Rule of Law Checklist, § 62.
40 See UN Human Rights Committee, Communication no. 2155/2012, Views / adopted by the Committee at its

110th session, 10-28 March 2014, para. 8.4.

41 Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2019)007, Report on Term Limits; Part II, Members of Parliament, and Part III,

Representatives elected at Sub National and local level and executive officials elected at sub national and local
level, § 16.
42 ECtHR, Advisory Opinion on the assessment, under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of the

proportionality of a general prohibition on standing for election after removal from office in impeachment
proceedings, 8 April 2022, § 83.
43 Ibid. §§ 84-85.
 - 13 - CDL(2023)052

from taking power unconstitutionally, as expressed in the decision of the Constitutional Court
which led to the prohibition of the political party Şor, is legitimate and may justify restrictions to
the right to be elected. Similarly, the stated aim to implement a decision of a Constitutional Court
would also prima facie constitute a legitimate aim if such was mandated by the decision.

5. Proportionality

41. It remains to be ascertained whether the measures proposed in the Law are proportionate
and exempt of arbitrariness. Regarding the proportionality of restrictions to political rights, the
European Court of Human Rights has underlined the need to assess any electoral legislation in
the light of the political evolution of the country concerned, which means that unacceptable
features in one system may be justified in another.44 The margin of appreciation is wide, but it is
not all-embracing.45 Although a state enjoys considerable latitude in establishing the criteria
governing eligibility to stand for election, which may vary in accordance with the historical and
political factors specific to each State, they should have a common origin in the need to ensure
both the independence of elected representatives and the freedom of choice of electors: if past
activities of certain politicians broadly disqualify them from holding public elected office, the voters
should be capable of coming to this conclusion themselves and not voting for these politicians in
future elections if they run for office. The introduction of ineligibility provisions where a state bars
certain individuals from running for public office may be seen as an act of discrimination, if not
based on objective, reasonable and non-discriminatory criteria, in line with the fundamental
principles of a democratic state.

42. In case 10/2023, the Constitutional Court carried out a thorough study to conclude that
the declaration of unconstitutionality of the political party Şor, a measure of an exceptional
nature, has to be decided, since previously various measures to quell the party’s illegitimate
activities had been issued without success. So, it concluded, reiterating that the declaration of
unconstitutionality of a political party has a preventive purpose, that the restriction was in
conformity with the principle of proportionality.

43. However, the Venice Commission and ODIHR consider that a clear distinction has to be
drawn between the political party that has been declared unconstitutional and the rights of
individuals who militate or militated within that political party. The prohibition of the party does not
directly affect the rights of all these individuals.

44. While the grounds referred to by the Constitutional Court for pronouncing the
unconstitutionality of the political party Şor may also by extension be applicable to individuals
seeking electoral office with the same illegitimate aims, the Law proposes to render ineligible
individuals who have militated in such political parties for the sole reason of being members
of its executive bodies or holding elective functions.

45. As appears from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Code of
good practice in electoral matters, the principles of proportionality and prohibition of
arbitrariness imply the individualisation of the measures taken.

46. The restriction provided for in the Law has a broad application ratione personae, insofar as
it would apply to the members of the executive body of a party declared unconstitutional and to
members of such party who hold an elected office – at the time of pronouncement of the
unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court. The question has therefore to be raised whether
that restriction constitutes a proportionate measure. The restriction applies automatically –
without further assessment of the individual conduct by an independent and impartial body or

44 ECtHR, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, no. 9267/81, § 52; Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], 16
March 2006, no. 58278/00, §§ 103-104 and 115.
45 ECtHR, Hirst v. the United Kingdom (No. 2) [GC], 6 October 2005, no. 74025/01, § 82.
CDL(2023)052 - 14 -

decision of a court - on the sole basis of the party membership and holding of a specific position.
The restriction also applies indiscriminately without distinguishing between party members who
may have actively contributed to the illegitimate acts attributed to the political party, from those
who were only performing neutral duties or were unaware of the potential unlawful acts committed
by the party. This means that the restrictions on the right to be elected apply to a group of people,
without an individualised assessment of their active involvement in the illegitimate activities of the
prohibited parties.46

47. The Venice Commission has highlighted that “[t]he exercise of political power by people
who seriously infringed the law puts at risk the implementation of [the] principle [of legality],
which is on its turn a prerequisite of democracy, and may therefore endanger the democratic
nature of the state. It is therefore justified to restrict their right to be elected”.47 It may be
acknowledged that members of executive bodies of a party as well as MPs representing this
party in the legislative body are not just ordinary members who are generally not involved in
the decision-making process of the party and the exercise of its everyday policies. On the
contrary, they are in principle in the very core of party policies and activities, as party
leadership along with the parliamentary group is the most important decision-making circle in
the political organisation. While some of them may have seriously infringed the legislation,
thus leading to the declaration of unconstitutionality of the party by the Constitutional Court,
not all persons targeted by the law are necessarily responsible, or even aware, of the actions
which led to such consequences for the party. In particular, the Law refers to party members
holding an elected office, which would also encompass elected members of a local council,
village or even small town who may only be remotely involved in the decision-making process
of the party. The Law does not provide for individualised decisions and considers a whole
group as collectively responsible for these violations. This leads in practice to a general,
automatic and indiscriminate application of restrictive measures, thus going against the
principles of proportionality and prohibition of arbitrariness guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol
1 to the ECHR and other international treaties and standards in the field of elections.

48. It is noted that the ineligibility to be elected would extend to local elections. As underlined
by the European Court of Human Rights, the proportionality of the restriction should also be
assessed from the perspective of the requirements of the proper functioning of the institution
to which the person will belong once elected and more generally the constitutional system and
democracy as a whole in the State concerned.48 It seems unlikely that the members of a local
council, village or even small town would fall under the category of mandate-holders which may
jeopardise the democratic order, which would also weigh negatively on the assessment of the
proportionality of the restriction.

49. The issue of proportionality also needs to be examined in the context of the severity of the
restrictive measures to be imposed on those persons found liable for actions that led to their
party being declared unconstitutional. In this respect, as noted earlier, the European Court of
Human Rights has made clear that an indefinite ban from running for political office is in any
case a disproportionate measure. In one case,49 it held that increasing a 10-year legal
restriction on being elected by an additional 10 years without justification given by Parliament
or the Government was manifestly arbitrary. The draft Law initially proposed a relatively short
3-year prohibition from running for office for the concerned individuals. However, prior to its
second reading this term was increased to 5 years without any reason for the increase
provided. This gives the appearance of an arbitrarily determined restrictive measure. In
addition, applying a standardised measure to all concerned persons can itself be seen as a

46 ECtHR, Ādamsons v. Latvia, no. 3669/03, 24 June 2008, § 125.

47 Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2015)036cor, Report on exclusion of offenders from Parliament, § 168.
48 ECtHR, Advisory Opinion on the assessment, under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of the

proportionality of a general prohibition on standing for election after removal from office in impeachment
proceedings, 8 April 2022, § 95.
49 ECtHR, Ādamsons v. Latvia, no. 3669/03, 24 June 2008.
 - 15 - CDL(2023)052

disproportionate measure in light of the fact that there may be varying levels of culpability for
individuals determined responsible for the actions that led to the banning of their party. As
such, establishing a range of measures that are proportionately applied would be more
appropriate.

50. The potential “interference with the free expression of the opinion of the people” also links
restrictions on the eligibility to the freedom of expression, guaranteed in Art. 10 ECHR. Electoral
campaigns are most important contexts for expressing and advocating political opinions. The
same considerations are relevant for all the elections covered by the electoral code.50

6. Procedural safeguards and effective remedy

51. Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights has stressed the need to afford sufficient
procedural safeguards against arbitrariness in the framework of the process of the domestic
authorities making such individual assessments.51 This includes the right to be heard, the right to
present evidence, the right to be represented by a lawyer, the right to defence, the right to a
sufficiently reasoned decision, and the possibility to contest the decision to an independent
judicial body. Since the ineligibility to be elected applies ex lege, it is not possible to legally
challenge the exclusion of the right to stand for election on its merits, contrary to the principle of
access to justice, one of the pillars of the Rule of Law.52 As there is no individual assessment of
each case, the person concerned will not be heard nor be provided with a reasoned decision that
would be subject to judicial review nor have access to an effective remedy for the violation of the
right to stand for election.

52. In conclusion, the legal basis for the imposition of such a limitation of the right to stand for
election is too wide to be proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.53 The restriction on the
right to be elected, in order to ensure a proper balance between the legitimate defence of
democracy and the protection of individual political rights, must be limited to those persons who
had an active participation in the actions that led to the declaration of unconstitutionality of the
party; for instance, concretely endangering the democratic system of the country or vote buying54
and must be assessed on an individual basis with adequate procedural safeguards, including the
possibility to challenge the decision.

50 On a possible violation of Article 10: the ECHtR has held in Hirst v. the United Kingdom (No. 2) [GC], 6 October
2005, no. 74025/01, § 89 : “The Court considers that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is to be seen as the lex specialis as
regards the exercise of the right to vote and (…) finds that no separate issue arises under Article 10 of the
Convention”: This applies also to the right to be elected: ECtHR, Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], 16 March 2006, no.
58278/00, § 141; Etxeberria Barrena Arza Nafarroako Autodeterminazio Bilgunea and Aiarako and others v. Spain,
30 June 2009, nos. 35579/03, 35613/03 and 35626/03, § 70.
51 See Political Party “Patria” and others v. Republic of Moldova, 4 August 2020, nos.5113/15 and 14 others;

Miniscalco v. Italy, 17 September 2021, no.55093/13; Galan v. Italy (dec.), 17 June 2021. See also Podkolzina v.
Latvia , 9 April 2002, no. 46726/99, in which the court stated that that the principle of effective guarantee of rights
requires that the procedure for assessing a candidate’s eligibility should provide sufficient safeguards to prevent
arbitrary decisions.
52 Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2016)007, Rule of Law Checklist, II.E. This principle is protected by the procedural

aspect of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR.

53 ECtHR Kiliçgedik and others v. Turkey, 14 December 2010, nos. 4517/04, 4527/04, 4985/04, 4999/04, 5115/04,

5333/04, 5340/04, 5343/04, 6434/04, 10467/04 and 43956/04), § 48.

54 On a possible violation of Article 10: the ECHtR has held in Hirst v. the United Kingdom (No. 2) [GC], 6 October

2005, no. 74025/01, § 89: “The Court considers that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is to be seen as the lex specialis as
regards the exercise of the right to vote and (…) finds that no separate issue arises under Article 10 of the
Convention”: ECtHR. This applies also to the right to be elected: ECtHR, Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], 16 March 2006,
no. 58278/00, § 141; Etxeberria Barrena Arza Nafarroako Autodeterminazio Bilgunea and Aiarako and others
v. Spain, 30 June 2009, nos 35579/03, 35613/03 and 35626/03, § 70.
CDL(2023)052 - 16 -

7. Specific measures

53. Two other amendments in the Law directly affect the right to stand for election and, in this
respect, also need to be examined for compliance with the proportionality principle. A new
provision in the Law on Political Parties (Article 4(6)) provides that the attributes of political
parties declared unconstitutional (name, symbol, logo, etc.) may not be used by other political
parties and electoral subjects. Using such attributes will result in refusal to register the political
party by the Public Service Agency or refusal to register the electoral subject by the competent
electoral body. While a prohibition on use of the attributes of a banned political party may not,
as such, breach any international standard, the automatic refusal to register a political or
electoral subject for use of such attributes is disproportionate in light of the nature of the act.
Alternative remedial measures, such as warnings and a range of fines would be in line with
the proportionality principle as applied to such conduct. This same analysis is applicable to a
new provision in the Electoral Code which mandates de-registration of an electoral subject if
found liable for vote-buying by a competent electoral body, regardless of the severity of the
conduct (Article 102(5)(f)). Introduction of a range of administrative sanctions and their
individualisation, with de-registration reserved only for the most serious cases or patterns of
vote-buying, would be in line with the principle of proportionality.

IV. Conclusion

54. By letter of 24 July 2023, Mr Igor Grosu, Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of
Moldova, submitted a request for an opinion of the Venice Commission on the Law on the
amendment of certain normative acts (the implementation of certain considerations of the
Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 10/2023 on the check of the constitutionality of the
Political Party ‘Șor’). As this Opinion relates to the electoral field, it was prepared jointly by the
Venice Commission and ODIHR.

55. The Law was adopted with the votes of the majority in Parliament, six weeks after the
judgement of the Constitutional Court it was intended to implement and a bit more than four
months before the next local elections called for 5 November 2023, with the stated aim to
implement the Constitutional Court’s judgment and enforce a preventive mechanism resulting
from the unconstitutionality of the political party Şor.

56. The Venice Commission and ODIHR would like to underline the particularity of the present
situation. The authorities amended the legislation with the stated aim to implement the judgement
of the Constitutional Court. The principle of stability of electoral law cannot be invoked to prevent
the timely implementation of a judgement if it requires legislative changes to comply with
constitutional norms and principles. Moreover, while adoption of legislation by broad consensus
after extensive public consultations with all relevant stakeholders is always suitable, the absence
of consensus should not be an obstacle to the execution of the judgement. However, it is
important to note that the Constitutional Court judgement did not explicitly mandate any legislative
amendments for the judgement to be fully implemented.

57. The Law which provides for the ineligibility to be elected in presidential, parliamentary and
local elections, for five years, of members of the executive body of a party declared
unconstitutional and members of such a party who hold an elected office, restricts the right to
stand for election as enshrined, inter alia, in Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR and Article 25
ICCPR.

58. While this restriction may respond to the legitimate aim to defend the Constitution and the
integrity of the democratic State, it applies automatically on the sole basis of the party
membership and holding of a specific position, and indiscriminately without distinguishing
between party members who may have actively contributed to the illegitimate acts attributed to
 - 17 - CDL(2023)052

the political party, from those who were only performing neutral duties or were unaware of the
potential unlawful acts committed by the party. The restriction affects a large group of persons,
making them collectively responsible for the illegitimate activities of the party they belong to, thus
lacking individualisation and therefore due process guarantees. This goes against the principle
of proportionality and could lead to arbitrariness.

59. The Venice Commission and ODIHR therefore recommend to the Moldovan authorities, if
they wish to prevent certain members of parties declared unconstitutional from holding certain
elected offices:

• introducing adequate criteria and an effective individual assessment that would limit
restrictions of the right to be elected only to those members and/or elected officials of the
party whose activities have endangered the Constitution and the integrity of the
democratic State, through their actions and expressions, and/or actively pursued the
(illegal) goals of the unconstitutional parties;
• affording to these persons the full range of procedural safeguards in the assessment
process, including a sufficiently reasoned decision and the possibility to challenge the
limitation of rights by providing an opportunity to seek judicial review of the decision to
deprive them of the right to stand for election.

60. The implementation of these recommendations is essential to avoid upsetting the balance
between the legitimate aim of the protection of the State’s democratic order and national security
and the need to protect individual’s electoral rights, without disproportionately undermining the
essential role played by all political actors in ensuring pluralism nor threatening the representative
nature of the legislature.

61. The Venice Commission and ODIHR remain at the disposal of the Moldovan authorities for
further assistance in this matter.